Hong Kong: New Extradition Law Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Lord Alton of Liverpool

Main Page: Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench - Life peer)

Hong Kong: New Extradition Law

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts
Wednesday 12th June 2019

(4 years, 11 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Asked by
Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool
- Hansard - -

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the government of Hong Kong’s proposed new extradition law on (1) the autonomy of Hong Kong, and (2) its Basic Law guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as patron of Hong Kong Watch.

Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the Hong Kong Government’s legislative proposals, if enacted as currently drafted, could impact negatively both on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the joint declaration. This morning, the Foreign Secretary publicly urged the Hong Kong Government to listen to the concerns of their people and to pause and reflect on these controversial measures. The Hong Kong authorities should engage in meaningful dialogue and preserve Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms.

Lord Alton of Liverpool Portrait Lord Alton of Liverpool
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. She will be aware that, as we meet, tear gas and plastic bullets are being fired indiscriminately, with reports of injuries. In condemning this, will the noble Baroness reflect that in 2018, according to the Wall Street Journal, the courts in China’s Jiangsu province acquitted just 43 people, while convicting 96,271? Does she recall that a Hong Kong bookseller, imprisoned for eight months in China, was told by the authorities, “If we say you have committed a crime, you have committed a crime”? Does she not agree, with the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square in mind, that when the law becomes a tool in the hands of an all-powerful communist state, everyone, from political dissidents, academics and lawyers to detained Uighurs, has legitimate cause for fear? This is not least because people in Hong Kong will be left vulnerable to rendition in unjust trials, effectively giving legal status to previously illegal abductions. Will she reflect on the statement of the International Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong that there will be,

“an adverse impact on Hong Kong as a place to live and work, and”,

on its ambitions,

“to continue growing as a major international business centre”?

While a delay in enacting this law is welcome, can we reiterate that its abandonment would be even more welcome?